In the ever-evolving landscape of software development, the concept of technical debt has long been a topic of debate and concern. At QCon London 2026, Joy Ebertz, a seasoned Principal Engineer, presented a compelling argument that challenges traditional notions of tech debt management. Her presentation, 'All Tech Debt is Not Created Equal', offers a fresh perspective on how engineering teams can navigate the complexities of modern software development, especially in the age of accelerating code production and AI tools.
Ebertz begins by dismantling the perfectionist mindset that often plagues developers. She argues that striving for a perfect codebase is futile if it leads to the company's demise. Instead, the focus should be on creating the best software possible within the given constraints. This shift in perspective is crucial, as it allows teams to prioritize effectively and make informed decisions.
The core of her framework lies in a six-question approach to evaluating and prioritizing technical debt. The first question, 'What is the cost if we don't do anything?', delves into the potential consequences of inaction. Ebertz emphasizes the importance of considering both immediate and long-term impacts, such as customer churn and developer attrition. She introduces the concept of 'ticking time bombs', distinguishing between scale problems with warning systems and security vulnerabilities with uncertain exploit probabilities.
The second question, 'What is the cost of fixing it?', explores the financial and operational costs associated with resolving technical debt. This includes opportunity costs, training engineers, and managing dual systems during migration. Ebertz shares a real-world example of a system migration that resulted in a critical feature being overlooked, highlighting the hidden surprises that can arise during the process.
Ebertz then introduces the concept of '80% solutions' in the third question, 'Do we need to fix it the right way?'. She argues that sometimes, an 80% solution at a fraction of the cost can be more practical. Examples include nightly database cleanup scripts, hard-coded limits, and monthly server restarts. She emphasizes that a one-hour hard-coded solution can sometimes be more efficient than a four-week development effort.
The remaining questions focus on timing, completion likelihood, and the potential outcomes of addressing the debt. 'Is now the right time?' prompts teams to consider the system's current state and the potential benefits of AI-assisted refactoring. 'Will we be able to get the project to the finish line?' highlights the importance of realistic project management and avoiding the pitfalls of evolving codebases, as exemplified by the PHP codebase that never completed its migration.
'Will a project actually make things better?' is the final question, urging teams to re-evaluate their decisions regularly. Ebertz stresses the importance of maintaining a balanced perspective, considering both the cons of the current solution and its original pros. She advocates for building checkpoints to ensure that migrations remain feasible and aligned with business goals.
One of the key takeaways from Ebertz's presentation is the need to translate technical decisions into financial terms. She proposes a method for building business cases by calculating current costs, assessing their trend, ideating solutions, and comparing incremental costs. This approach ensures that technical debt management is justified and aligned with the organization's financial objectives.
Lastly, Ebertz discusses the impact of AI on technical debt. While AI is accelerating code production and potentially introducing more 'slop', the question remains whether it matters. She differentiates between debt that is harder to fix, such as data migrations and security vulnerabilities, and debt that is easier to address, like walled-off components with clear boundaries. This distinction is crucial for effective prioritization and resource allocation.
In conclusion, Joy Ebertz's presentation at QCon London 2026 offers a refreshing perspective on managing technical debt. Her six-question framework provides a practical approach to prioritizing debt, considering both technical and financial aspects. By embracing this mindset, engineering teams can navigate the complexities of modern software development more effectively, ensuring that their efforts are aligned with business goals and long-term success.
